Holy
Trinity, and of the Godhead of the Holy Spirit Gregory of
Nyssa

To
Eustathius

But the inspired teaching does not allow us to say that
there are more than one, since, whenever it
uses the term, it
makes mention of the Godhead
in the singular; as,- in Him
dwelleth all the fulness
of the Godhead (Col.
ii. 9)

All
you who study medicine
have, one may say, humanity for your profession: and I think that one
who preferred your science to all the serious pursuits of life would
form the proper judgment, and not miss the right decision, if it be
true that life, the most valued of all things, is a thing to be
shunned, and full of pain, if it may not be had with health, and
health your art supplies. But in your own case the science is in a
notable degree of double efficacy; you enlarge for yourself the
bounds of its humanity, since you do not limit the benefit of your
art to men's bodies, but take thought also for the cure of troubles
of the mind. I say this, not only following the common reports, but
because I have learnt it from experience, as in many other matters,
so especially at this time in this indescribable malice of our
enemies, which you skilfully dispersed when it swept like some evil
flood over our life, dispelling this violent inflammation of our
heart by your fomentation of soothing words. I thought it right,
indeed, in view of the continuous and varied effort of our enemies
against us, to keep silence, and to receive their attack quietly,
rather than to speak against men armed with falsehood, that most
mischievous weapon, which sometimes drives its point even through
truth. But you did well in urging me not to betray the truth, but to
refute the slanderers, lest, by a success of falsehood against truth,
many might be injured.

I may
say that those who
conceived this causeless hatred for us seemed to be acting very much
on the principle of Aesop's fable.

For
just as he
makes his wolf bring
some charges against
the lamb (feeling ashamed, I suppose, of seeming to destroy, without just pretext, one who had done him
no hurt), and then,

when
the lamb
easily swept away all the slanderous charges brought against him, makes
the wolf by no means
slacken his attack, but carry the day with his teeth when he is vanquished by justice;

so
those who were as keen for
hatred against us as if it were something good

(feeling
perhaps
some shame of seeming to hate without cause),
make up charges and complaints against us, while they do not abide
consistently by any of the things they say, but allege,

now
that one thing, after a
little while that another, and then again that something else is the
cause of their hostility to us.

Their
malice does
not take a stand on any ground, but when they are dislodged from one
charge they cling to another, and from that again they seize upon a
third, and
if all their charges are
refuted they do not give up their hate.

They
charge us with
preaching three Gods,
and din into the ears of the multitude this slander, which they never
rest from maintaining persuasively.

Then
truth fights
on our side, for we show both publicly to all men, and privately to
those who converse with us,

that
we
anathematize any man who says that there are three Gods, and hold him to be not
even a Christian.

Then,
as soon as they hear
this, they find Sabellius a handy weapon against
us, and the plague that he
spread is the subject of continual attacks upon us.

Once
more, we
oppose to this assault our wonted armour of truth, and show that we
abhor this form of heresy just as much as Judaism.

What
then? are they weary after
such efforts, and content to rest? Not at all. Now they charge us
with innovation, and frame their complaint against us in this
way:-

They
allege that while we confes three Persons

we
say that there is one goodness, and one power, and one
Godhead.

And
in this assertion they do
not go beyond the truth; for we do say so. But the ground of their complaint is
that their custom does not
admit this, and Scripture does not support it. What then is our
reply? We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing
custom the law and rule of sound doctrine.

For
if custom is to avail for
proof of soundness, we
too,
surely, may
advance our prevailing custom;

and
if they reject
this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs.Let
the inspired
Scripture, then, be our umpire, and

the
vote of truth
will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with
the Divinewords.

Well,
what is their charge?
There are two brought forward together in the accusation against us;
one,

that
we divide
the Persons; the other,
that
we do not employ any of
the names which belong to God in the plural number,
but
(as I said already) speak
of the goodness as one,
and of the power, and the Godhead, and all such attributes in the
singular.

With
regard to the dividing of
the Persons, those cannot well object who hold the doctrine of the
diversity of substances in the
Divine nature.

For
it is
not to be supposed that
those who say that
there are three
substances
do not also say that there are three Persons.
So this point only is called in question: that those attributes which
are ascribed to the Divine nature we employ in the singular.

But
our argument in reply to
this is ready and clear.

For
any one who
condemns those who say that the Godhead is one,
must
necessarily support either
those who say that there are more
than one,
or
those who say that there is
none.

But
the inspired teaching does
not allow us to say that there are more than one, since, whenever it
uses the term, it makes mention
of the Godhead
in the singular; as,-"In Him
dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead (Col. ii. 9). "; and,
elsewhere,-"The invisible things of Him
from the foundation of the world are clearly seen, being understood
by the things that are made, even His
eternal power and Godhead (Rom. i. 20.) ."

If, then, to extend the
number of the
Godhead to a multitude

belongs
to those
only who suffer from the plague of polytheistic error,
and on the other hand utterly to deny the Godhead would be the
doctrine of atheists,
what doctrine is that which accuses us for saying that the Godhead is
one?

But
they reveal more clearly
the aim of their argument. As regards the Father, they admit the fact
that He is God , and that the
Son likewise is
honoured with the attribute of Godhead;

but
the Spirit, Who
is reckoned with the Father and the Son,they
cannotinclude in their conception of
Godhead, but hold that the
power of the Godhead, issuing from the Father to the Son,

and
there halting,
separates the nature of the
Spirit from the Divine glory. And
so, as far as we may in a short space, we have to answer this opinion
also.

Here
we see one of the motives
for the idea of trinity: many agreed that Father and Son were the One
God but denied that the Spirit was also the same God

What,
then, is our
doctrine? The Lord, in
delivering the saving Faith to those who become disciples of the
word, joins with the Father and the Son the Holy Spirit also; and we
affirm that the union of that which has once been joined is
continual;

for
it is not
joined in one thing, and separated in others.

But
the power of the Spirit,
being included with the Father and the
Son in the life-giving
power, by which our nature is transferred from the corruptible life
to immortality, and in many other cases also, as in the conception of
"Good," and "Holy," and "Eternal," "Wise," "Righteous," "Chief,"
"Mighty,"

and
in fact
everywhere,
has an inseparableassociation with them in all the
attributes ascribed in a sense
of special excellence.

And
so we consider that it is
right to think that that
which is joined to the Father and the Son in such sublime and exalted
conceptions is not separated from them in any.

For we do not know of any
differences by way
of superiority and inferiority in attributes which
express our conceptions of the
Divine nature, so that we should suppose it an act of piety (while
allowing to the Spirit community in the inferior attributes) to
judge
Him
unworthy of those more
exalted.

For
all the Divine attributes,
whether named or conceived, are of like rank one with another, in
that they are not
distinguishable in
respect of the signification of their subject. For the appellation of
"the Good" does not lead our minds to one subject, and that of "the
Wise," or "the Mighty," or "the Righteous" to another, but the thing
to which all the attributes point is one;
and, if you speak of God, you signify the same Whom you understood by
the other attributes.

If
then all the attributes
ascribed to the Divine nature are of equal force as regards their
designation of the subject, leading our minds to the same subject in
various aspects,

what
reason is
there that one, while allowing to the Spirit community with the
Father and the Son in the other attributes,

should
exclude Him from the
Godhead alone? It is absolutely necessary either to allow to Him
community in this also, or not to admit His community in the others.

For
if He is worthy in the
case of those attributes, He is
surely not less worthy in this. But if He is "less," according to
their phrase, so that He is excluded from community with the Father
and the Son in the attribute of Godhead, neither is He worthy to
share in any other of the attributes which belong to God. For the
attributes, when rightly understood and mutually compared by that
notion which we contemplate in each case, will be found to imply
nothing less than the appellation of "God." And a proof of this is
that many even of the inferior existences are called by this very
name.

Further,
the Divine Scripture
is not sparing in this use of the name even in the case of things
incongruous, as when it names idols by the appellation of God. For it
says, "Let the gods that have not made the heavens and
the earth perish, and be cast
down beneath the earth (Cf. Jer. x. 11.) "; and, "all the
gods of the heathen are devils (Ps. xcvi. 5 (LXX.)) ";

and
the
witch in her incantations, when she brings up for
Saul the spirits that he
sought for, says that she "saw gods (1 Sam. xxviii. 13.) ." And again
Balaam, being an augur and a seer, and engaging in divination, and
having obtained for himself the instruction of devils and magical
augury,

is
said in Scripture to receive
counsel from God (Num. xxii.)

One
may show by collecting many
instances of the same kind from the Divine Scripture, that
this attribute has no supremacy over
the other
attributes which are
proper to God, seeing that, as has been said, we find it predicated,
in an equivocal sense, even of things incongruous;

but
we are nowhere
taught in Scripture that the names of "the Holy," "the
Incorruptible," "the Righteous," "the Good," are made common to
things unworthy.

If,
then, they do not deny that
the Holy Spirit has community with the Father and the Son in those
attributes which, in their sense of special excellence, are piously
predicated only of
the Divine nature,

what
reason is
there to pretend that He is excluded from community in this
only, wherein it was shown
that, by an equivocal use, even devils and idols share?

But
they say that this
appellation is indicative of nature, and that, as the nature of the
Spirit is not common to the Father and the Son, for this reason
neither does he partake in the community of this attribute. Let them
show, then, whereby they discern this diversity of nature. For if it were
possible that the Divine nature
should be contemplated in its absolute essence, and that we should
find by appearances what is and what is not proper to it, we should
surely have no need of other arguments or evidence for the
comprehension of the question.

But
since it is exalted above
the understanding of the questioners, and we have to argue from some
particular evidence about those things which evade our knowledge , it
is absolutely necessary for us to be guided to the
investigation of the Divine nature by
its operations.

If, then, we see that the
operations which
are wrought by the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit differ one
from the other, we shall conjecture from the different character of
the operations that the natures which operate are also different.

For
it cannot be
that things which differ in their very nature should agree in the
form of their operation: fire does not chill, nor ice give warmth,
but their operations are distinguished together with the difference
between their natures.

If,
on the other
hand,
we understand
that the operation of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is
one,

differing
or
varying in nothing,
the oneness
of their
nature must needs be
inferred from the identity of their operation.

The
Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit alike give sanctification, and life,
and light, and comfort, and all similar graces.

And
let no one
attribute the power of sanctification in an especial sense to the Spirit,
when he hears the Saviour in
the Gospel saying to the Father concerning His disciples,

"Father,
sanctify
them in Thy
name
(Cf. S. John xvii.
11 and John xvii.17.)." (His name is Jehovah-Saves or Jesus)

So
too all the other
gifts are wrought in those
who are
worthy alike by the Father, the Son,
and the Holy
Spirit: every grace and
power, guidance, life,
comfort, the change to immortality, the passage to liberty, and every other boon
that exists, which descends to us.

But
the order of things which is
above us, alike in the region of
intelligence and in that of sense (if by what we know we may form
conjectures about those things also which are above us), is itself
established within the operation and power of the Holy Spirit,
every
man receiving the
benefit according to his own desert and need.

For
although the arrangement
and ordering of things above our nature is obscure to our sense,

yet
one may more
reasonably infer, by the things which we know, that in them
too the power of the Spirit
works, than
that it is banished from the order existing in the things above us.

For
he who asserts the latter
view advances his blasphemy in a naked and unseemly shape, without
being able to support his absurd opinion by any argument.

But
he who agrees that those
things which are above us are also ordered by the power of the Spirit
with the Father and the Son, makes his assertion on this point with
the support of clear evidence from his own life.

For
as the nature of man is compounded of body and soul,
and the angelic
nature has for its
portion life without a body, if the Holy Spirit worked only in the
case of bodies, and the soul were not capable of receiving the grace
that comes from Him, one might perhaps infer from this, if the
intellectual and incorporeal nature
which is in us were above the
power of the Spirit, that the angelic life too was in no need of His
grace.

But
if the
gift of the Holy Spirit is principally a grace of
the
soul, and the constitution of the soul is linked by its intellectuality and invisibility to the angelic life, what person who knows how to see a consequence would not agree, that
every intellectual
nature is governed by
the ordering of the Holy Spirit?

The
"spirit" which would rest
upon Jesus would not be a second person:

AND
there shall
come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow
out of his roots: Isaiah 11:1

And
the
spirit of the
Lord
shall rest upon
him, the spirit of
wisdom and understanding, the spirit of
counsel and might, the spirit of
knowledge and of the fear of the Lord; Isaiah 11:2

And
shall make him
of quick understanding in the fear of the Lord: and he shall not
judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing
of his ears: Isaiah 11:3

For
since it is said "the
angels do alway behold the Face of My Father which is in heaven
(Matt. xviii. 10.) ," and it is not possible to behold the
person
of the
Father otherwise than
by fixing the sight upon it through His image;

and
the
image of the person of the
Father is the
Only-begotten,

and
to Him again no
man can draw near whose mind has not been illumined by the Holy Spirit,

what
else is shown
from this but that the Holy Spirit is not separated from any operation
which is wrought by the Father
and the Son?

Thus
the identity of operation in Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit shows
plainly the undistinguishablecharacter of their
substance. So that even if the
name of Godhead does indicate
nature, the community of substance shows that this appellation is
properly applied also to the Holy Spirit.

But
I know not how
these makers-up of all sorts of arguments bring the appellation of
Godhead to be an indication of nature, as though they had not
heard from the Scripture
that it is a matter
ofappointment

(The
point of the
argument seems to be that "Godhead" is spoken of in Scripture as
being given by appointment, which excludes the
idea of its being indicative of
"nature." Gregory shows that it is so spoken of; but he does not show
that Scripture asserts the distinction between nature and
appointment, which the reading of the Benedictine text and Oehler
would require him to do. Translators note)

For
unto which of the angels
said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?
And again, I will be to
him
a Father, and he
shall
be to
me
a Son?
Heb.1:5

in
which way
nature does not arise. For
Moses was
appointed as a god of
the Egyptians, since He Who gave him the oracles, &c., spoke
thus
to him, "I have given thee as a god to Pharaoh (Ex. vii. 1) ." Thus
the force of the appellation is the indication of some power, either of oversight or
of operation.

But
the Divine nature itself,
as it is, remainsunexpressed by all the names
that are conceived for it, as our doctrine declares.

For
in learning that He is
beneficent, and a judge, good, and just, and all else of the same
kind, we learn diversities of His operations, but we are none the
more able to learn
by our knowledge of His operations the nature of Him Who works.

For
when one gives a definition
of any one of these attributes, and of the nature to
which the names are applied,
he will not give the same definition of both: and of things of which
the definition is different, the nature also is distinct. Indeed the
substance is one thing which no definition has been found to express,
and the significance of the names employed concerning it varies, as
the names are given from some operation or accident.

Now
the fact that there is no distinction in the
operations we learn from the community of the
attributes,

but
of the
difference in respect of
nature we find no clear
proof,
the identity of operations indicating rather, as
we said, community of nature.

If,
then, Godhead is a name
derived from operation, as we say that the
operation of the Father, and the
Son, and the Holy Spirit is one, so
we say that the Godhead
is one: or if,
according to the view of the majority, Godhead is indicative of
nature, since we cannot
find any diversity in their nature, we not unreasonably
define the Holy Trinity to be of
one
Godhead ( The treatise,
as it appears in S. Basil's works, ends here.)

But
if any one were to call
this appellation indicative of dignity, I cannot tell by what
reasoning he drags the word to this significance. Since however one
may hear many saying things of this kind, in order that the zeal of
its opponents may not find a ground for attacking the truth, we go
out of our way with those who take this view, to consider such an
opinion, and say that, even if the name does denote dignity, in this
case too the appellation will properly befit the Holy Spirit.

For
the attribute of kingship
denotes all
dignity; and "our God,"
it says, "is King from everlasting (Ps. lxxiv. 12.) ."

But
the Son, having
all things which are the Father's, is Himself proclaimed a King by
Holy Scripture. Now the Divine Scripture says that the Holy Spirit is
the unction
of the Only-Begotten (Acts x. 38.) ,

interpreting
the
dignity of the Spirit by a transference of the terms commonly used in
this world.

For
as, in ancient days, in
those who were advanced to kingship, the token of this dignity was
the unction
which was applied to them, and when this took place there was
thenceforth a change from private and humble estate to the
superiority of rule, and he who was deemed worthy of this grace
received after his anointing another name, being called, instead
of an ordinary man, the
Anointed of the Lord:

for
this reason,
that the dignity of the Holy Spirit might be more clearly shown to
men, He was called by the Scripture "the sign of
the Kingdom," and "Unction,"

whereby
we are taught that the
Holy Spirit shares in the glory and kingdom of the Only-begotten Son
of God. For as in Israel it was not permitted to enter upon the
kingdom without the unction being previously given,

so
the word, by a transference of
the terms in use among
ourselves, indicates the equality of power,

showing
that not
even the kingdom of the Son is
received without the dignity of the Holy Spirit.

And
for this reason He is
properly called Christ, since
this name gives the proof
of His inseparable and indivisible conjunction with
the Holy Spirit.

If,
then, the Only-begotten God
is the Anointed, and the Holy Spirit is His Unction, and the
appellation of Anointed
points to the Kingly authority, and the anointing is the token of His
Kingship, then the Holy Spirit shares also in His dignity. If,
therefore, they say that the attribute of Godhead is significative of
dignity, and the Holy Spirit is shown to share in this last quality,

it
follows that He
Who partakes in the dignity will also partake in the name which
represents it